From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrews v. Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2000
271 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

dismissing claim for unjust enrichment that was indistinguishable from breach of contract claim barred by statute of frauds

Summary of this case from Doe v. Roe

Opinion

April 25, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 3, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of defendant-respondent Cerberus Partners to dismiss plaintiff's second, third and fourth causes of action as barred by the Statute of Frauds and for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Martin I. Twersky, for plaintiff-appellant.

Adam D. Mitzner, for defendant-respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.P., MAZZARELLI, RUBIN, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


Plaintiff's attempt to establish an oral agreement to enter into a joint venture must fail because of the absence of any allegation that the parties were to share losses (see, Matter of Steinbeck v. Gerosa, 4 N.Y.2d 302, 317, appeal dismissed 358 U.S. 39). Furthermore, any argument that plaintiff was entitled to a 15% equity interest as a result of the information he imparted to defendant concerning the business that it eventually purchased is barred byGeneral Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) , and plaintiff's contention that he was to receive a five-year employment contract is barred by General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(1). The claim for unjust enrichment, indistinguishable from the breach of contract claim, was also properly dismissed (see, Bradkin v. Leverton, 26 N.Y.2d 192). Likewise, the claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations cannot be sustained, since, absent any obligations under the alleged oral joint venture agreement, plaintiff cannot show that he had a prospective business relationship with the takeover target.

We note that, in an unchallenged portion of the order, the court dismissed the first cause of action for breach of the confidentiality agreement with leave to replead. However, were the issue before us, we would find that damages were sufficiently alleged.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Andrews v. Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2000
271 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

dismissing claim for unjust enrichment that was indistinguishable from breach of contract claim barred by statute of frauds

Summary of this case from Doe v. Roe
Case details for

Andrews v. Partners

Case Details

Full title:HOLDT ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CERBERUS PARTNERS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 25, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 85

Citing Cases

Wonder Works Constr. Corp. v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC

Further, New York courts have routinely recognized that claims may be dismissed as duplicative where such…

Wash. Diamonds Corp. v. Diamonds By Israel Standard, Inc.

& Co., Inc. (40 AD2d 655, 656 [1st Dept 1972]), the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of a motion for…